Total posts: 3,520
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
Fair enough I am unable to read your mind. I retract my comments about your motives.
Created:
Posted in:
This topic is raised because it is often thrown out against the theist that they do not produce any evidence. I am sure that the implication is that the atheist believes they raise evidence all of the time.
And yet, it seems that, at least from my perspective that the so called evidence from the atheist is innuendo, opinion, hearsay, and simply assertion.
Sometimes there will be implied suggestions that a particular verse says something - but no real evidence to support what they are saying, save and except - they think they know what it means.
So what is evidence? And what is reliable evidence? And what is compelling evidence?
Created:
-->
@Juice
Tradesecret: You too, have provided no evidence. The only thing you have done is discredit Darwin. Then you turn to morality. The issue with this is that God doesn't solve the morality issue, it simply postpones it. Is murder bad because it is, or is it bad because God says it is? Another issue I see is that you instantly default to God when you do not understand something. I could very easily make a hypothetical god which answers all out current day dilemmas. Though you may believe your God solves the issue of morality, and even if it hypothetically does, you still have the issue of proving God's existence.
The problem with murder directly has to do with God. Humanity is made in the image of God. When someone strikes humanity it is essentially striking at God. And whether this is murder, or even assault or indeed rape, it is the same thing.
Murder is evil because it strikes at the creator of the universe, the author of life. Now that is a significant justification. And before you laugh at that thought as some would, it is also very alike in nature for the justification we have in our legal systems today for any crime committed. In the Western legal system you will probably note we have the criminal justice system and the civil justice system. The former is for offences against the state. the latter for offences against the individual or private person. Yet when someone is murdered - or assaulted it is the police who deal with it - not the individual or private person. Why? Because the real victim in that sense is not the private citizen but the State. And so the STATE brings the action in the Criminal Justice System and provides the appropriate justice it believes will satisfy itself. Why do the private citizens feel outraged when the sentence is so weak from their point of view? Because they think that they, the private citizen is the victim - but they are incorrect. The crime of murder or assault is a crime against the STATE and the STATE is the primary VICTIM. If others feel unsatisfied by this - then they can go to the civil courts and bring their own action - indeed as they did in the OJ SImpson trial.
To say that murder is wrong because its strikes at God through his image of humanity is a signficant justification. Yet for humanity - in a world where there is no God and humanity is taught that survival of the fittest is natural, then the reason for prosecuting murder changes significantly. It probably comes down to social contract - we want to know that we want to live without fear of being killed - so we promise or contract in society not to kill people - unless there is a lawful ??? reason to do so. Hence it becomes pragmatic to not kill people. Unfortunately, this does not really produce a law except out of fear. Imagine that - trying to get people to agree to do something out of fear? LOLL!
It really leads to "you can do anything you want - just don't get caught."
Also I reject your allegation that I resort to some sort of God of the gaps strawman. I resort to God when I know things and when I don't know things. Given God is the ultimate reality in our existence it would be difficult not to do so. And it would also sort of demonstrate that my view was false if I did not do so. I do not take the view that God somehow answers all of our unknowns. Not knowing something now does not mean we wont in the future.
It is impractical and impossible to know everything. Scientists don't just sit there and think to themselves "gee I can't find that answer - lets throw science away.". If they can find a solution themselves they will look for it. If they think someone else can find it - they will defer to their abilities. If they just know that we don't have the capacity to know right now and probably wont for decades - they will just put it to the back of their mind and go on with their work. This is the same for believers. We don't have to all of the answers now - and that is ok. We can leave things in God's hands - that too is ok.
I love it when people who don't believe in God think it is up to people who do - to prove it. The burden of proof is not on us. It is on you.
God is the default. Atheism is still the minority by a long way. Everything we see is evidence for God. And yet, you cannot see any of it. I cannot explain that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
“… with God all things are possible.” — Matthew 19:26“…The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” — Judges 1:19The Judges verse talks of the people not driving out the inhabitants of the mountain, not God.[.............]… I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” — Genesis 32:30“No man hath seen God at any time…”– John 1:18Let's see if you can figure it out."At anytime" says it all for me.
Duh!
Of course that does it for you. I am not surprised by that at all. Yet, it still does not get the heart of the matter does it?
Do you really think that the authors of the bible so DUMB that in this really important point about God that they would say - no you can't see because he is invisible and on the other hand - you can see him if you look closely? Your answer probably is yes. I say - you miss the obvious. Especially when it is the same author saying it at different times.
And since I am not going to do your homework for you - and since you obviously know the bible so well - you should know the answer - or perhaps you have not yet found it in the sources - that you never use. But that could not possibly be it!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Like dragons and basilisks and ghouls and shit like that.
I don't know. I have never really put my mind to whether they are supernatural or not. Certainly in my mind they are probably fairytale stories.
Are they supernatural? I do not know. Do they have special powers that humans don't? It is possible - I suppose. But does that make the supernatural?
They certainly are not human.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
I usually don't respond to comments on my forum since I use the forums to ask questions, and not to debate. However, since you want clarification, I shall provide. It's also important to note that you didn't give me a reason to believe that the bible is the word of God.
No I have not yet. I intend too - but I just wanted clarification in relation to the assumptions within your question.
The Quran says that it's the word of God, saying:And there is no living creature on earth but depends for its sustenance on God; and He knows its time-limit [on earth] and its resting-place [after death]: all [this] is laid down in [His] clear book[1]
Thanks for providing that reference. I am not persuaded that translation is the best translation nor that it is declaring that the Quran is the Word of God. It certainly is not declaring itself to be the Word of God.
Next the Torah, since the Torah is the first five books of the old testament [2] we can use any verses from there."If you will not observe and obey all the words of this Torah that are written in this book, so that you will fear this glorious and awesome name, ADONAI your God; 59 then ADONAI will strike down you and your descendants with extraordinary plagues and severe sicknesses(deuteronomy) 28: 58-59"[3]This clearly states that The Torah is God's book, since obeying the Torah is obeying God
The Torah is the Christian's OT - we would have no issue with this at all.
For obvious reasons, it would be too impractical to show every religious text that claims to be the word of God, so I just used two that are common and easy to look up verses in. So to answer your question, at least two others[1][2][3]
The reason I asked for clarity is because I take the view that it is actually very rare for any scriptural book apart from the Bible - both OT and NT which declares it is the bible and the word of God.
I was taking issue with your assumption that Christians could not use the argument that they believe the bible to be true because it says so. I actually think it is part of the reason - not the only reason of course, but part of the reason why people can trust it is the Word of God. IF it did not convey this vital piece of information it would tend towards saying God has not written his words for us to read and understand. Hence, why I asked you to clarify which so called religious books actually declare quite clearly that they are the Words of God.
I think the reason which is obvious why you have not provided others is because there are so few religious books which actually declare this, it surprised you. In fact I would not be surprised that you could not find any other except the two you found - one which is actually the BIBLE anyway and the second which is so vague that it could mean anything and does not specifically say it is God's word.
As for why I believe the Bible to be the Word of God. One is: it declares itself to be. Two: the Holy Spirit has convinced me. Three: it's internal and consistent evidence. Four: the external evidence verifying its authenticity. Fifthly, tradition. Sixthly, the authority of the Church. Seventhly, logic and reason. Eighthly, experience. Ninthly, the lack of evidence that it is not.
Now for the record I am not of necessity by your opening question required to prove any of these points - which I don't feel the need to do since you asked only for the "Basis of my belief". And as such I have provided the basis of my belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
have been watching The Witcher recently. Are the monsters Geralt kills on the show supernatural?
I have not watched the show. I cannot answer the question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The authority of Oxford as pertaining to the English language is unquestioned, surely.It should be evident that God transcends nature. Therefore, there should be no controversy about God being considered "supernatural".
No one is denying that God transcends nature. The issue is about whether or not God as divine and does divine things naturally or whether God is just a super or more evolved human who thereby does things supernaturally.
The Dictionary definitions produced so far make an assumption. This assumption is that God fits within the particulars of those things that fall into a super evolved human. Hence, believers in God are labeled at superstitious, believers in magic, and beyond science.
Yet the Bible describes God as above and beyond any laws of principles of science and nature. It describes God as eternal. The Greek and Roman Gods according to Plato are subject to the laws of science and nature. They are also not eternal - even though they have exceedingly long lives. The dictionary definition capture these greek and roman gods, because in many respects they are simply an extension of humanity. But the Bible describes its God not as an extension of humanity but as the creator life.
God is God.
I say God is God. And that puts him into rarified territory. Attributing things to him that he does as supernatural is therefore like saying a bird is supernatural because it can fly. Or suggesting that an insect is supernatural because it can walk on water. Or calling a chameleon supernatural because it can change color or adapt to its environment. It would be ridiculous to do that. And it is ridiculous to call God supernatural as well because he does things that humans cannot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Do you lay awake at night thinking of me? I am so flattered. I have been wondering why I have been privileged to receive so much attention from you. And the only reason I can think of that makes sense is that the things I put forth get under your skin. Now I know you could not possibly admit or concede this, yet, it is the only thing that actually makes sense.
It must really gall you, that you are unable to get me out of your head. LOL! This explains the venom that pours forth from your fingers. Perhaps you are realizing the futility of your own thinking - I think this is great news. I will keep praying. I figure if GOD can save Paul then he can save anyone - including me and including you. That is great news.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
… I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” — Genesis 32:30“No man hath seen God at any time…”– John 1:18
Hmm - this is one of my favorite alleged contradictions.
It is the reason why Atheists cannot see God. And the same reason why believers can. And it has nothing to do with faith.
Let's see if you can figure it out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
“… with God all things are possible.” — Matthew 19:26“…The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” — Judges 1:19
The Judges verse talks of the people not driving out the inhabitants of the mountain, not God. NIV. This seems consistent with the Hebrew. It is the people of Judah who could not drive out the enemies. The query I suppose comes about because we are also told that God was with them. My immediate response was that it was a continuation of the Israel's fear and distrust of God, even though he was with them, such as when the 10 spies went into Canaan. The reason for this fear or mistrust in God seems to be because of the chariots of iron.
Hence, the alleged contradiction. The Atheist thinks it is God not able to drive them out. The believer that - the people distrust God, even though he is with them.
My view is that the latter harmonizes the passage and is consistent with the scriptural view that men don't like to trust God, even when they have seen God do amazing things to their enemies. It is not a contradiction. Or at least it is not proved as a contradiction. This is a consistent answer without resorting to implausible considerations.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Yes, here you remain in not knowing in how embarrassing it truly is in your admittance of being a SEXUAL DEVIANT!
I have not ever admitted to the same. And when you repeat something it does not make it true.
I have denied it on many occasions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
What, exactly, is your basis for believing that the Bible is True? Cannot use "because the Bible says so" in your answer, since any religion would be true by that standard.
just for the sake of clarity, how many religions religious books ACTUALLY say they are the WORDS OF GOD?
And please don't guess - provide the number and even one quote from each religious book confirming it is the case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Why did God create 10 sextillion stars in the Universe? Wouldn't a 1000 have been enough?
Why did evolution produce 10 sextillion stars in the universe? Would'nt 1000 been enough?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Your seperation from the church isn't because you are intentionally anti-Christian. How would it be right to hold this against you? That said, I fully believe that there is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and I believe that to be The Orthodox Catholic Church.
Hi Mopac, With all due respect, I am not separated from the Church because I am united with Christ through his death and resurrection by faith and also baptized by his Holy Spirit. I will trust the Scriptures over and above your interpretation which you have obtained from the OC .
I reject that the Orthodox Church is the only true denomination within the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Nevertheless, I have no reason to doubt that there are many faithful sisters and brothers within that denomination. No one can say say that Jesus is Lord unless by the Spirit of God. Lord in that sense is the Lord God of the Universe.
You could say that God cannot be creation, yet God became creation for the sake of our salvation, in no way losing His divinity.
Yes, it is a mystery, isn't? How can God not change - and yet he added to himself humanity. But I agree that when God also added humanity to himself - he did not lose any sense of his divinity.
I don't know, I have no problem calling God supernatural.
I have no problem calling God divine. Yet divinity is not the same as supernatural, even though it has become quite normal to confuse and therefore conflate the two.
The first definition of supernatural according to Merriam-Webster states "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe"Certainly, God exists beyond the universe even.
The dictionary may indeed define supernatural in that sense. But with respect to that particular dictionary definition, I am of the view it is inaccurate. It is too general a definition - not precise as definitions ought to be. One might also then suggest that love or fear or any emotion is supernatural because things although well known to us in our culture would not be immediately identified or observed in a similar manner in another culture. Indeed even in our culture, the definition of love is exceedingly notorious and difficult to define and understand - yet we can see it. Or not. A great example is Jesus dying on the cross for the sins of the world. I would say that is perhaps the greatest example of love in human history. Yet, an atheist will observe the same event and miss "love" altogether. So because it is not able to be observed by all as the same thing but is rather something beyond the visible universe does that mean that love is not real? Therefore supernatural.
Stephen too provides a definition:https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5026/post-links/213490
supernatural/ˌsuːpəˈnatʃ(ə)r(ə)l/Learn to pronounceadjective
Stephen chose to use the adjective usage of the term - rather than the noun. Still it can be used as a participle so not necessarily incorrect. It too describes an event or force attributable to something beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. And this would be quite appropriate for describing a superman or the invisible man. But I would suggest that is not adequate for describing divinity. In other words quite appropriate for humans but totally inappropriate for the divine.
Let me explain that further. While it is true that the divine is beyond scientific understanding, a divine being is not beyond the laws of nature unless of course the divine being is in the form of say the greek or roman gods. Such gods who themselves are subject to so called laws of nature.
The God of the bible is not subject to such laws - because such laws are either laws he brought into being according to his own nature or simply labels we humans have attached to the way the divine does things.
Think about a bird for instance. A bird flies in the sky. Is it natural for birds to fly or not? It is natural. We would not suggest that bird flying is supernatural. If an insect walks on water, is it natural or supernatural? If a man walks on water we would call it supernatural. If a spider produced a web is it natural or supernatural - yet if a man does, like Spiderman it would be supernatural.
My point is that humans are humans and do human things. Birds are birds and do bird type things. Insects are insects and do insect type things. But a divinity is a divinity and does divine things. It is inaccurate to attribute the term supernatural to God. God is totally natural doing things that God does.
Created:
-->
@Juice
If every bible was burnt - it still would not get rid if the Bible. There are many people all around the world, who have memorised it. Totally.That's not what I meant. The point is that the Bible is not observable from nature, and that it came from some peasants imagination. Things like gravity, chemistry and physics are all a product of observations and calculations.
I knew what you meant. I disagree with you.
As for science, perhaps some of it would be observed. But other stuff, like the origin of the universe, or indeed evolution would soon be discarded because it is not observable.I can almost hear the reluctance in you admitting some of science can be observed. You state that evolution cannot be observed? This is embarrassing. Then how did Darwin come up with his theory? Was it his imagination? Did he make it up? No, he observed it in nature. Leading scientists such as Richard Dawkins have run computer programs which simulate this exactly.
Well sorry tootems. It is not observable for everyone - so it is not observable. I can get a 1000 people who can provide observations of the reality of God in their lives. But you would say - you can't prove it to me. But I have yet to see anyone produce any observable evidence of evolution. And if it is not observable to millions of people it is not observable. It has to be observable to all be to true - that is what every atheist says - I have seen no evidence for God therefore it is not true. I have not seen any evidence for evolution. EVER. Every time some evolution puts up some evidence an alternative reasonable explanation can be provided. This is why the doctrine remains controversial. It has not been proved to be true for everyone.
Why is that it is the most recognised biological discovery of the century? Biologists and evolutionists have found that Darwin is right. Every living object are in fact related.
Well actually, Darwin has been shown to be wrong on many occasions by so called evolutionists. His work keeps getting rewritten. But when his priests and disciples are the ones who call him right - well - what do you do? You are not allowed to criticize the pope or Darwin.
One other interesting thing is that there have been people who try the bible and destroy it. The Nazis and the Communists most notable. And if you look back into ancient Israel, many of their own tried to destroy it. But somehow for whatever reason GOD keeps preserving his Word.Oh yes, of course. It's God. God is so keen to keep his word he's willing to intervene. Is there any evidence of this? No. But no matters, I'll play along.Assuming God kept the bible in circulation, that would mean he has been active in the last 50 years. It would also mean he is willing to intervene with human activity. You mentioned the Nazi? Good on you. Why is that God didn't do a thing when Jews were being tortured, raped and gassed? Why is is that God allowed WW2 to begin? Why does God send tsunamis which kill millions? You've stubbed your own toe here buddy. You've closed your own escape hatch. The usual response would have been "God doesn't want to intervene with humans" but as you have stated, he is willing to save his own book and goes as far as intervening with humans. Is God so greedy that he is willing to save his book, and not act when Jews by the millions are dying.
Red Herring. Of course we know you were talking hypothetically - but it is people such as the Nazis and the Communists who want to burn books. That is the point isn't? You hate free speech. You hate that people want to think for themselves and not be brainwashed by the socialist agenda. I suggest that EVIL proves God exists. Evil requires an absolute standard. Take away the standard and there is no evil. Evil then becomes a relativistic liquid thing that is dependent only on the current generation and will inevitably change with the next. I think God intervenes when he chooses. But it is entirely his prerogative and entirely moral in either event. God is the author of life - hence it is impossible for to murder anyone. Only people who are not the author of life can murder. What he gives he can take away. This is his prerogative.
Now you would not only have to burn every book - you would have to destroy the internt and every computer and phone.You clearly do not understand. It's quite embarrassing. The point isn't to say whether this is possible, because it's not. I'm saying hypothetically, if the bible was wiped from human memory, it would be gone forever. I then compare this to science, where if every scientific fact is erased, it would be back in some shape or form.
Duh! Yes, speculative hypothetical nonsense - all I have done is demonstrate the nonsense of the argument. Science would not arise again without the Christian worldview. The current trajectory of philosophy is towards relativism and fluidity. It is opposed to absolutes and rules. Science will not survive for long without its foundations of truth and absolutes. It requires things to remain in solids not in fluids. And once the world becomes more and more consistent with this philosophy, then science will altogether become the pseudo science it is starting to reflect even now.
The one thing poor old Ricky keeps forgetting is that God is real and he will maintain his word indeed as he has over 4000 years. That is an observable fact. I wonder what you will do that?I feel pity for your ignorance. You really are, to put it plainly, stupid. "God is real". Haha. What part of God is an observable fact? The part where he lets Jews die? The part where he puts Asians in internment camps? The part where he allows children to be raped? Where is the evidence. Trust me, if you gave me any sort of testable evidence, I will examine it, but the only thing you religious chaps can say is "have faith".
You seem to think that these things are evil? Would you care to explain what evil is? And whether evil is real or just a fluid part of our generations moral consciousness - here today but gone tomorrow? It would be interesting to see where you draw a line or if you even believe in a line?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Certainly, there is a divine nature. I would be careful though lest the impression is given that God is contingent on nature, or limited by His nature.
Hi Mopac,
thanks for your warning. I am puzzled though. Are you warning me as a fellow believer or as a believer to a non-believer? If as a believer to a believer then thanks is welcome, but puzzling, since you have continued to dismiss me and my religion as a non-Christian religion. If it is as a believer to a non-believer, then I am still puzzled as to why it would matter to you how I describe God?
But in relation to your post, I am merely making the point that God himself says "I am that I am". God is limited to his own character according to the Bible. Hence he cannot lie. He cannot sin. He cannot do absurd things. The perception unfortunately by people is that this limit in relation to his own character is judged by a human understanding of limitation. From a sinful human perspective limitation becomes a reducing or somehow an inferior thing. Yet, from a true perspective - limitations are indeed the most superior form of authority and power. Take for instance the notion of freedom. Who has superior and greater freedom? The person who has no boundaries or the person who has boundaries? The sinful human would automatically look towards "no boundaries". Yet they would be mistaken. In fact, without boundaries the notion of freedom has no meaning - in fact it loses meaning. Even the very word "freedom" itself only has meaning because of the boundary of definitions tied up in the shell of a "word".
The person without limitations is lawless. God on the other hand is just and lawful. His character is perfect and flawless. HE is totally consistent. This is one of the meanings of holiness - which not only means separation - but is derived from the English word "whole". Meaning total and without flaw.
Yet, I hear your caution. We should not throw pearls before the swine lest they trample it - from their ignorance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
If god is real, he/she/it/they is/are supernatural, 100%. I do not even understand how you can back up your claim and would be willing to formally debate you on this topic (with me as Con or even me as Pro to 'God is supernatural, if real'.
Wow! Now that is a challenge. Let me think about it for 24 hours. Thanks for the opportunity to debate you on this question. I quite like the idea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
And also despite your replies to me specifically, my above which you replied to was directed at the Brother. So your responses were actually just another interruption from yourself. I don't mind that you respond to my words when I write to other people- but don't respond in such a way that you actually think I was writing to you. All that does it demonstrate you don't read what you are responding to within the context.
Still, have a nice day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
not when It comes to these scriptures I don't. After all my initial beliefs about them, I still stand by my over all opinion that - in the New Testament in particular- these scriptures are telling another story of a violent struggle for power among the many religious sects and factions.. I believe the story is there to be wheedled out from the many clues that betray the accepted story of man born of a virgin among straw and cows in a shed to became the messiah of the Jews / saviour of Christendom .
LOL!
So it does have an agenda? I have been waiting for you to reveal even a tiny bit. You have been very careful. LOL! Well at least it explains somewhat the warped views you have. And also why you NEVER reveal your true sources. I would be embarrassed too.
Created:
-->
@Juice
To all, here is a saying I like to keep in mind.If you burn every scientific textbook, it will come back in some sort of shape or form in the next 1000 years. This is because the scientific textbook is a collection of observable facts. However, if you burn every single bible in the world, it will never come back. You would think that the big book of life which has human morality etched in it's pages would be a bit durable than this.Think about it. Where do science textbooks come from? Nature. Where does the bible come from? Obviously, since it will never come back if burnt, it is not in observable nature. It comes from imagination.This example was first made by Ricky Gervais.
If every bible was burnt - it still would not get rid if the Bible. There are many people all around the world, who have memorised it. Totally.
As for science, perhaps some of it would be observed. But other stuff, like the origin of the universe, or indeed evolution would soon be discarded because it is not observable.
One other interesting thing is that there have been people who try the bible and destroy it. The Nazis and the Communists most notable. And if you look back into ancient Israel, many of their own tried to destroy it. But somehow for whatever reason GOD keeps preserving his Word. Now you would not only have to burn every book - you would have to destroy the internte and every computer and phone.
The one thing poor old Ricky keeps forgetting is that God is real and he will maintain his word indeed as he has over 4000 years. That is an observable fact. I wonder what you will do that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
theism is NOT a dogma or a creed.Atheism literally means "NOT a Theist".It's the same as calling yourself "NOT a space alien" or "NOT an champion swimmer".It isn't a description of what you ARE, but of what you are NOT.
Yes keep telling yourself that is what it is. Atheism literally means "No God". It is a worldview, it has doctrines. It might bury its head about what these are - but evolution - origin of life, death are all parts of this worldview.
And get this - if all atheists are atheists because they look at the world and see there no evidence for God, and these same atheists also look at the world and don't come to the same conclusion about everything, using their own reasoning and logic, then how and why should we trust them about the so called lack of evidence they don't see for God?
After all, we have to assume that the reasoning they are using to determine what evidence is or is not there is similar. But on the other hand - if they all come to the same conclusion about the lack of evidence for God and yet draw many other conclusions about everything else - perhaps the common factor of unity is hallucination. They all are having delusions or perhaps they are all brainwashed - or perhaps they are all reading the same book by Dawkins?
But unless they are all have the same way of dealing with evidence or so called lack of evidence then I think that they ought to be dismissed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It also dismantles your assertion that spending time arguing against something somehow indicates that I really really really believe in it.
No it does not.
You just want to define terms to make you have a non-faith.
It is a false sense of logic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
And as for wanting a response to your questions - when you learn to stop with the drivel and lies and baseless allegations, then I might find the time to answer some of your questions. Until then - you can continue your journey in spam, like your master, Harikrish. It did not do well for him - it just drove everyone away. But I suppose if your purpose is to drive me away - then who knows you might ultimately get your desire.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
My position changes when it needs to. I am not God so I do change. I live and I learn and I adapt as I have my ideas tested. And when I am wrong I admit it.
Are you suggesting that you never have a need to adapt and learn or do you already know everything?
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
And yet here I remain. Perhaps your reliance upon Harikrish does not embarrass me as much as it does you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
But let's stop and consider what you are saying.
You have non-faith in atheism.
I too have non-faith in atheism.
where does it leave us?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
That my friend is a red herring.
And it avoids the reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
TO do so - is an example of someone who has not actually thought through her position but someone who has just jumped in by "blind faith".It takes ZERO faith to NOT believe in something you've never seen or heard.How much faith does it take for you to NOT believe in the almighty NANABOZHO?
Less than you to not believe in God. I do not find forums for instance to bolster my non-faith about some almighty NANABOZHO. I don't.
Yet, you who continues to tell us all about how much non-faith you have, spend oodles of time doing so.
I could care less about people mocking me or changing my view on Ananabozho - but you on the other hand spend considerable time defending your position.
It is what it is. You just choose to pretend it is not. Good for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
What is it about you? I don't care that you miss some of the questions I ask you. When you do, it is not immediately my thought that you are avoiding them.
You don't need to start a list of all of the questions you think I miss. Just ask me. And when I see it and am not answering already a boxload of other questions, then I will get to it.
You and the Brother shoot from the hip. Not with a pistol but with a shotgun. This means that you both say lots and ask many questions. Most of it is all over the place and sometimes I find that specific questions need a more direct answer than some of the others.
Some of your questions are tongue in cheek. Many don't deserve an answer. Others you are asking - even though you already know the answer. You are no fool. I have never pretended that you are - although perhaps sometimes I have called the same.
All I am saying is that I will answer when I am ready to do so. Not simply because you ask a question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Stephen,
thanks for apologizing. I do not lie. I tell it how it is. And sometimes, like you, I miss things. It does not mean I am avoiding them.
I will note for clarities sake, you posted the new topic and for that I thank you. But it was not because you believed I had asked you.
I will take it you did it on good faith. That is quite different - but something which I respect.
I only ask you do me the same curtesy. Not the respect - but the good faith that I am not avoiding or running away from questions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
HI Stephen,
thanks for the question.
Are you suggesting then that the so called "miracles" performed by Jesus were not supernatural? Well good for you if you are Reverend Tradesecrete, because I believe exactly thesame.
Glad you agree. That is why I did not see it as a question from you. But given that you have since then suggested you would like an answer. Here it is.
My opening post was this. God is not supernatural. God can do whatever is in accord with his own natural order and that would be natural. Jesus, however when he was on the this planet, appeared as man, as indeed I have said on numerous occasions. He did not come to prove he was God or divine. Jesus did nothing of his own accord, all he said and all he did was empowered by both the Father and the Holy Spirit.
The miracles that occurred - healing the sick, raising the dead, miracles, were all works of the Holy Spirit. Hence, if done by God the Spirit or the Father, natural for them. As humans we look at Jesus and think supernatural. But he denied that he did them himself.
But let us say that he admitted to the miracles, would it be supernatural or natural? My view would be that humans - cannot be supernatural. But Jesus was fully man and fully God. Although he never attempted to prove he was divine, does not mean that he could not have done things which were divine. If he did, then it was natural.
I see no inconsistency here - nor that Jesus was supernatural or that events or miracles he was observed to have been connected with were supernatural. But on the other hand I do not want to convey the impression that what Jesus was observed to do was so ordinary from a human perspective that people were not amazed. This would be inaccurate. Clearly, miracles occurred that amazed and perhaps convinced some people. They were certainly dealing with a special type of person in Jesus.
Yet, perceptions from others about what Jesus is doing - is again only perceptions. it does not add or take away from the meaning of God is not supernatural.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Maybe I should have asked `besides the fkn obvious of being , born, sleeping, eating shiting' : what other function did John - as "the greatest prophet that ever lived" have besides "preparing the way" and cleans people of their sins? OH! and having his head removed?I am going to assume that - like the very much qualified Reverend Tradesecrete - you don't know of any other function that John may served , Intelligence_06. But please correct me if I am wrong.
You seem to have the answers - tell us - don't leave us in suspense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
But in the same post I certainly mention you are avoiding the issue. Which you did. But somehow - you just conveniently say you did not eve recall it. LOL!
Well no. I am not in a muddle. Obviously by your reply you are. Jesus is Fully God and Jesus is Fully Man. Not half god and half man - fully God and fully Man. I am simply repeating Christian doctrine. You know it - but you want to say that I am doing it. LOL @ your nonsense. Jesus ate food, he cried, he got tired, he slept, all things he did as a man. Christians totally affirm that Jesus is man. Yet we also affirm he is God. Not just a son of God because he was born into the line of David. I notice you have not attempted to justify this reasoning yet. I hope you get around to it. I am genuinely interested in knowing whether every king in the line of David is called the Son of GOD. Of course it does not prove your point even if you prove it - certainly it adds a plank in your argument - I can see that - so far as we forget every thing else in the bible - or write it of as mythology.
I underline the good bit. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3557/post-links/193706
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Stephen - LOL@ you. What did I inject into the passage? You made the suggestion that Jesus is not God. And that this verse proves that. I indicated I totally agreed with the verse because it is not talking about Jesus as God but as man. I indicated and remain of the view that God here is referring to the Trinity - which in the Christian view includes the Son as the Second member of the Triune God. It does not refer to Jesus as God just as it does not refer to the Father or the Holy Spirit as God. Timothy uses the term God. In Christian understanding this God is the Trinity. And yet when Christians read this passage they are thinking of the Trinity. This verse rather confirms the twin doctrine - of Jesus being fully Man. Even that is an incredible thing to think about. No other man could do this - what was it that so special about him? Not just being a king of Israel - because no other king of Israel could do this? In fact it had to with his priesthood status - in the order of Melchisadek .Still I suppose I don't expect you to understand. you are still ripped because I did not try and make out that this verse is incorrect. It is in fact a wonderful verse and confirms the Christian doctrine.
Here is another reference to your notion of Jesus as king of Israel. Although not directly asking for evidence to prove the same, it was an opportunity for you to engage which you chose to avoid or run away. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3557/post-links/193706
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Now is all you have to do is show me where before10.20.20 10:52PM you asked me for evidence that all kings of Israel were called Sons of God.
Here is one. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3557/post-links/193292. Please notice the time stamp. 08.16.20 12:42AM
In relation to your argument that every king of Israel is called Son of God, I say prove it. If for instance I find one king of Israel who was not called Son of God, does that prove you wrong? And I certainly hope you would not be foolish enough to rely upon an argument from silence. Yet, what you fail to realise that even if every king of Israel is called the Son of God - this does not logically prevent Jesus from being GOD. How about you prove the point? It is quite logically possible that a proper heir of the throne of David could not only be called the Son of God as a title - but in fact be the TRUE SON of GOD. To say otherwise is something that you need to prove.
I will continue to look for the others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
Many Christians believe that the culture is against Christianity, or at least that's the impression I get. However, 70 percent of American is Christian[1], so how could the culture be against Christianity, or secular, if a major of it is Christian? Which way does the culture lean? Christian or not Christian?[1]
The Western Culture in many respects is a culture that exploded with Christian thinking, specifically, the protestant movement. Yet over the years the predominant Protestant culture has morphed into a secular and progressive culture. Yes, there are remnants of conservative and protestant culture about - in fact it probably underlies most of the primary institutions in society, most notably, our legal system, science, education, and moral systems. Yet over the past 80 years or so - the ordinary institutions of our western society have slowly but surely been influenced by relativism, by evolutionary thinking, Marxist and Hegelism which has in many ways undermined these historical institutions of state, church and family. The family has now been redefined. It is not longer necessary to be a married couple of male and female. Now it can be whoever you want - and you don't even need to be married. It is now the community who raises your child, not the parents. Church has been undermined. The bible has been made redundant. The gospel disputed. The church mocked and scorned in shame, not just because it belongs to another time, but because many of its clergy shamed the Lord Jesus. Where once upon time it was considered a safe-haven - a place of sanctity, nowadays, people refuse to take their kids anywhere near it. The State has gone from being a place which governed in local areas over political matters has grown not only in size but now thinks it is authoritative in EVERY area.
The church and many Christians do feel under attack by our society. Originally secular did not exclude Christianity. Now it does. Where once it was appropriate to have prayers and religious instruction in schools, now it is prohibited. Once, society embraced the sacredness of human life, now it aborts it out of existence. Once society would embrace Christmas as a Christian festival - now if someone dares to put up a nativity display they are hounded for not caring about other religions - despite the fact that we told to tolerate Halloween - Ramadan , hindu festivals and local indigneous festivals.
Often Christians are told they are winging about nothing. You are the majority group they say - you are privileged. The Christian culture is now not even a shell in the community even if many are Christians. My view would be most of the so called Christians are Christians in name only, and do not even know more that a few traditions they learned when they were young.
In our country during lockdown - the pubs are allowed to open up with 50 people inside - and 50 people outside. So are the shops, the restaurants, the cafes, and many other places. The church is permitted 10 people only and they have to meet outside. Interestingly enough, we can have a funeral on the Friday - with 20 people INSIDE - and exactly the same service - minus the coffin is not permitted on Sunday - in fact - only 10 people and then you have to be outside. Meanwhile the Mosques are permitted to have 50 people.
The government also refuses to talk to us. There is no sound reason. But yep, they are not anti-church. It is just our perception.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
->@Tradesecretso you agree that the bible recommends corporal punishment? i dont think most christians know this, and i dont know if they'd agree.i would argue that the bible mandates corporal punishment, but that might be reading too much into it.
I think mandate presumes to much. I think that corporal discipline is just one of a number of tools that are available for parents or guardians for children. It can both be overused and underused. It can misused and it can used appropriately.
Any form of punishment or discipline by any organisation, group, religion or even tennis club can fall under the same headings. Having a form of punishment or discipline means that the organisation, group, religion, or tennis club values the things they are seeking to encourage and to find ways to discourage the things they think are no worth valuing. The higher we value something - the tougher the penalties get. Having no discipline or lightweight penalties reveals only that we have no or little intrinsic value in something.
The bible values families. It values a proper and righteous relationship with God. The world who is opposed to Christianity has its own values. That is ok. Yet, for the world to mock the discipline methods of the church is really only an attack on values. The World would punish as severely as it could any who might hurt children. This is appropriate. The church says that the things it values are also worth keeping and preserving. The world does not have to agree and again that is fine. But the world does need to consider that the values of the church are going to be different to the way it values things. And that too is ok.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I agree that God is divine and does divine things, but what do you mean by supernatural?
Great Question Mopac.
I mean as opposed to natural. Superman is supernatural. Aquaman is supernatural. A human who does things that other humans cannot do.
But what is natural? Natural is what humans ordinarily do.
Birds fly. This is natural. Humans don't. That too is natural. But if a human did fly that would supernatural.
If a bird did not fly, that too is natural.
The same applies to God. What is natural for God? And what is supernatural to man.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
First, there will never be ultimate proof of whether God exists or not.
Wow, we just start immediately with assumptions don't we? No need for pretense - just throw out the premises and then move on from there. You got to love it when people are convinced of something before they even consider it.
The argument for God is powered on faith, and even then, you could not say that your god is the right one.
LOL @ you. Sorry, you are wrong there. There is no argument for God. What an amazing thing to assume. Faith means trust. That is what Christians mean when they talk about faith. So the notion that there is an argument for God powered on trust - makes literally no sense. As for saying that my God is the right one. That is not difficult at all. My God is God. If I had to choose a god, then I would not choose the god of the Bible. In fact, if I got to choose a god, it would be one that looks and sounds a lot like me. But I don't get to choose God. Not the true and real God. And yet, here I am, eager and willing servant of God. How did this happen? Not through my parents. Not through my church. Not through some strange experience. My parents are not in sync with their religious positions. One is an atheist and one is from a dissenting congregation. Both would lean towards free-will and both would consider the church I attend now as dangerous and liberal and perhaps even non-Christian. The church I attended with my mother would be in accord with my mum. My wife on the other hand was part of the Pentecostal and charismatic movement - big believers in experience and warm fuzzy feelings, speaking in tongues etc. They too would consider me - as one out of the box.
I did not choose my religion. Nor my God. And incidentally this is what Christianity teaches. SecularMerlin talks of determinism in a secular sense. Almost a fatalistic manner. He fails to realise the connect he has with the Islam faith in that position. Nevertheless, I do not believe in a fatalistic God. I have no issues saying that GOD is correct. While you might desire deep down that this no one can say their God is true - it ironically is based on the notion that truth cannot be known truly. Which when you think about it is a self contradictory statement. How can you say "no one can their God is true" unless firstly you know something about God which you don't claim and secondly, unless you have some sort of measure of ABSOLUTE truth which you don't claim. Ironically, your statement logically produces some alarming truths for you. But I won't spoil this for you. Get your logic book out and figure it out for yourself.
Now we have a couple of religions, each one saying that their god is the correct one, so to speak: Whatever I believe, it becomes the correct one? How to prove it?
With great respect, what does that even mean? Every person thinks whatever they think is correct. EVERYONE does. If they did not think that what they thought was correct, then they would think something else. IPSO FACTO. You think you are correct. I think I am correct. The Brother thinks he is correct. Stephen thinks he is correct. Excuse me if I just think this does not need to be said. Of course every religion which believes in God or indeed who does not believe in God - thinks that their picture is correct. Please get on with what you are trying to articulate. I really think there is no need to prove God exists. He just is. Everywhere I look I see evidence for God's existence. Whether it is in the universe around us, whether it is the state of evil in the world, whether it is the good that occurs, whether it is the reliability of science, or mathematics, or whether it is in laws, or philosophy, or medicine, or other religions - in the heart of humanity - everything is always revealing the reality of God. Even death does.
If we are believing in the wrong God, then we are just making him madder and madder each day.
Why? Is God a human with human feelings that they can increase over time? What sort of God, don't you believe in? Is God really that fickle that he would lose a sense of control when people do the wrong thing? Again, what a strange god you don't believe in. If it helps, I don't believe in that one either.
I want the religious to prove why their god is correct.
No you don't. That is untrue. If this was the case - then you have contradicted your very first statement and assumption about faith. See, you don't want truth or proof. You need something else - according to your own assumptions. You want God or a religion to give you faith. Religions don't give faith. God does. but that is a different matter.
So either you go back and revisit your first assumption above or you ask for proof. You cannot have it both ways. I say neither are particularly helpful.
Created:
Posted in:
God is God. He is not supernatural and does nothing that is supernatural. He is divine. This means that he does divine things.
To suggest that God is supernatural is to reveal something insightful about yourself - that your picture of God is not actually god, but human or something akin to it. It also reveals that your understanding of god is clearly flawed.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
corporal punishment is a form of discipline that is still widely practiced in many places in the world, and supported by government organisations, including Child Welfare groups.
In most countries in the world, corporal punishment is still accepted and even encouraged as a form of discipline. I
The Bible is in line with this concept.
Some nations - have taken a weird approach, even suggesting that it is a form of assault. But corporal punishment is not assault and ought not be mixed up with assault.
Corporal punishment is the authority of the parents over the child. It is but one form of discipline - and probably in many cases - the discipline of last resort.
Some people suggest that smacking your child teaches your children to assault others. But that is a nonsense argument. Does the court system fining you - taking money without your permission, teach you to steal? Does the government putting people into prison, locking you up without your consent, teach people to kidnap people? No.
A parent is an authority figure. A government is an authority figure. Should police officers not use reasonable force to bring crooks to justice?
Notice that the form of punishment advocated by the bible is clearly not unto death. There has to be restraint. It has a purpose - not just for the sake of it. It is to stop the child from continuing on in an attitude of rebellion.
Given that parents typically love their children - they are not going to on average go over the top in their discipline which is itself a control.
Nevertheless, it is not the ones who do the right thing that are the concern, it is those who have no boundaries - and see it as punishment - not as a means of discipline who are the ones that need to be stopped.
Created:
Posted in:
The primary purpose of prophecy is to cause people to an ethical response to what they are hearing. John's preaching was to announce not just that the messiah was coming - but that he was imminent. Not just at some unknown time in the future - but that his coming was going to be the very next event on God's calendar. And his job therefore was to prepare people for the messiah's coming.
Hence he preached repentance. He washed people coming to him for their sins. I don't recall any other episode in the OT where a prophet not only called people to repentance - but he then washed the entire lot of them. I am sure you will find some for us. It was priests who went about in the temple - performing the sacrifices on behalf of those who came. But here with John, he had no lamb - not until Jesus turned up - - Behold the Lamb of God. Yet it was the job of the prophets to call people to repent. That was their purpose - to declare the Words of God to repent of their sins or face the judgment of God.
John' job or purpose was unlike any of the other prophets - his was to usher in the king of kings - the messiah. John's very presence indicated the Messiah was imminent. I can think of no other greater role for a prophet - can you? Sorry that was a question - and I know how you love to dodge them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
This request raises other issues aside from the "son of God" question. In the eyes of Judaism, it is a problematic claim as the king and the priest came from two different tribes and the two roles were incompatible with each other. There was one exception which ultimately caused huge problems for the nation so it isn't anything that people would want to repeat. There are other objections, especially concerning the term "anointed" and the role of ritual immersion and its relation to the roles of priest and king. But, again, this and other concerns are unrelated to the son of God claim.
Hi rosends,
you ask really good questions. The problem of priest and king is an excellent point for it raises the separation of powers doctrine. Ancient Israel is often labeled a theocracy because it was a religious nation with the laws of God as their "in principle" statutes. I think that is a misnomer. I take the view that every nation is a theocracy. Some are democratic theocracies. Others are constitutional theocracies. Others are dictatorship or absolute theocracies. Some are socialist theocracies. Of course this is not accepted dogma in our legal understanding. Theocracies have always been defined by "religion" or church. But I think that misses the point entirely.
Jesus, according to the Gospels was born into the tribe of Judah. Some on this site suggest that since his mother's cousin was a Levite that this makes him a Levite as well. Of course the NT rejects this idea emphatically. It says he was not a Levite in the book of Hebrews and subsequently could not be a priest in the Order of the Levites, especially since he was from the tribe of Judah. Despite the challenge to these "some", to engage with the book of Hebrews and to this challenge directly, none have been forthcoming. I suppose that they think if they ignore it - no one will ask again. Or Perhaps they have forgotten it or are going to pretend it never happened. I certainly am not going to accuse them of running away. In any event the NT rejects that Jesus was a Levite.
When Saul was anointed as king. When David was anointed as king. What was the procedure? God brought Saul to the prophet. Samuel anointed Saul in front of the nation? Not at first but in a private ceremony. A prophet of God, Samuel anointed Saul with oil with no witnesses per se. The Spirit of God came upon him. When David was anointed, Samuel was told to fill his horn with oil. The prophet went to Bethlehem where David's family was. All the family was lined up without David. God chose not on looks or strength but his own reason - and when David was called to come - the prophet knew and anointed him with oil and the Spirit came upon him. Both of these private ceremonies were not done in the full viewing of the public domain - as a king before the people - yes later both were confirmed in front of the people. But the common elements here were a prophet of God, the pouring of oil and the reception of the Holy Spirit.
Saul as you will know was from the tribe of Benjamin not Judah. David was from Judah. Jesus according to the gospels is from the tribe of Judah, not Benjamin. Jesus was involved in a ceremony before the people of Israel, not a public ceremony - a private ceremony, and the person doing the ceremony was a prophet. And during this ceremony, the gospels say God spoke from the heavens - this is my son in whom I am well pleased - obvious reference to Psalm 2 and also to Abraham and Isaac in Genesis. Psalm 2 is incidentally used in ancient Israel as part of the kingly ceremony and ordination and even today, incidentally part of the British Monarch's ordination service. The Holy Spirit also came upon Jesus. The missing element as I have indicated before was the oil. And for that I don't have a satisfactory answer. Some suggest that Holy Spirit is often symbolized by oil or that oil and the Spirit are closely connected. Yet, in both Saul and David's ceremony, oil was still used which suggests that even if the Spirit of God is symbolized by the same - the oil was still required. Others suggest that the prophet Samuel used a branch from a Hyssop Tree in his ceremony of baptism - in order to baptize thousands and that John's practice was in accord with the ancient ritual - which combined water with oil as a matter of law-and which when we go back to numbers is clearly a possibility. Yet, unless we engage with that background - which many people do not - then there is no obvious mention of oil in the baptism that John performed.
In my view - Jesus' was called to the prophet of God, like Saul and like David. A prophet conducted a ceremony - unlike other practices going on around him - God called him his Son in line with the Messianic Psalm of the King. and the Holy Spirit fell upon him in accord with the other two anointing of kings. For me the oil is a missing ingredient - although I am also happy to engage with the ancient biblical practice of mixing water with oils. The question is - what else needs to be included for the anointing to be in the same ilk as Saul and David? What else needs to be expressed for this to be conclusive of what was happening - except the very words within the context saying this is what was going on.
I agree that both King and Priest ought not be mixed up and combined again because of the problems associated with what the bible calls the sin nature. As is often said - power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is why David could not be the messiah and why the son of David, Solomon could not either. Only someone - who was born of both GOD and HUMANITY - in the form of the Messiah could succeed in this role - because their nature was tainted by sin nature of humanity.
The gospels declare that Jesus' father was the Holy Spirit. Christians claim Jesus was FULLY GOD and FULLY MAN. This is our explanation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Look at the double standard here.The thing here is that on this thread https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4736-then-why-baptize-him the Reverend Tradesecrete claims that the evidence for Jesus being anointed a king (among other things) is in the bible.Followed by:Yet, I disagree with you in respect of Jesus' ordination because I take the view that the evidence is there [ in the bible] and it is clear. #18 TradesecretBy " is there" he meant in the bible.But I am sure that you can no doubt guess what happened when asked repeatedly to point out this "clear" biblical evidence, can't you? That's right; the thread went on until I asked her again at post here #42 Stephenthen this happened : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUG9VzHoEocThat's right. She disappeared. And the very Reverend Tradesecrete still hasn't shown us her very "clear evidence" biblical or otherwise that Jesus was anointed a king or anything else has it happens. Not on single pinch. And the reason for this is simple , its because she herself used reasonable assumption; just as I have in stating all kings of Israel were called sons of god. I offered evidence where-as the Reverend Tradesecerte offers NONE for her assumptions!Like I have said above., just look at the double standard going on here. She a fraud and should be ashamed of herself not knowing these scripture before she haughtily prances off to "pass on things" she doesn't even understand to her imaginary students.
Stephen, you are so delightfully clever. May we all worship the very ground you walk on. I have not avoided discussing that point as you well know. I have after all been trying very much to keep up with the answers to your so many questions. Let alone the Brothers. Perhaps I missed one or two or a hundred - I don't know and really don't care. Again however what you really don't get - is that I am not your lackey doing your homework for you. When I get around to answer questions I will. You took a very long time to get this topic despite me asking you - you just said "I don't recall it" suggesting by implication, had not.
In the original post about Jesus' baptism, I addressed the question of why Jesus was baptized despite the fact that he did not sin. I made the point that I took the view that it was his ordination as a priest prophet and king. You said you agreed but that there was no evidence to prove this in the bible. I said - there was. I have provided the evidence in relation to his priesthood. You have not refuted this. I have not done so yet in relation to his kingship, nor indeed to his ordination as a prophet. Why you focus on the former to the neglect of the latter is a question for you.
What is a better question though is - why have you side-stepped Rosends question to you? Rather than answer that one - you simply took the opportunity to have a dig at me and how you perceive I am inconsistent. Unlike you, I work. I don't ever hour of every day to address your questions. Mock me all you like - as you will no doubt do - that is your area of expertise - ad hominen attacks.
And at least do the curtsey of responding to rosend directly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Well, as usual, you lost another one, sorry.
LOL @ you.
Do you really think that people on this site did not leave the other site because it was working well? Do you really think so little of the people here that you would say otherwise?
Furthermore, given that your other allegations about me are produced by Harikrish, it does surprise me that you would raise them at all. I would have thought that even you - despite my better judgment would trust him about as far as you could kick him. Still I have denied the allegations and have nor reason to revisit them either there or here.
Have I lost? Lost what?
Unlike you, I still have my integrity. I don't have to resort to a somewhat weird caricature of everything I despise in order to be funny. I can't tell you how much the fact that you do this makes me smile. It is a little like Alex Baldwin doing his Trump impersonations. A person who does not care what the truth is so far as he gets a laugh. It really confirms in the mind of believers what atheists think of God and religion. And the fact that you use the scriptures out of context reveals that we need to our work even more thoroughly.
Still kudos to you. I am pleased to see you back.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
For anyone to come to the conclusion that there is no evidence for God's existence and ignore completely the origin of humanity is absurd"There's nothing about the origin of humanity that requires magic as an explanation you Silly. God doesn't explain human origins, and fails as an explanation for anything else. So one can dive very little into the technical details of evolutionary theory to understand that supernatural intervention isn't required for human origins.
Who is talking about magic? With respect magic is the only explanation for "nothing was there, and then for no reason, nothing decided to explode". That is magic because unless there were principles of law in existence, and something for the principles of law to interact or engage with then magic is the only explanation. We won't even get into the absolute impossibility of statistical nonsense that after the magic of something happening for nothing exploded for no reason that life on our planet came about
What I am talking about has got nothing to do with whether that is plausible or not or even with whether God could do it or not. It is to do with the conclusion drawn by an atheist who claims "I have seen no evidence for God", yet has not even considered looking at the evidence which people who do believe in God rely upon. If that person chooses to call themselves an atheist - great - but it is nothing short of blind faith. They are an atheist out of choice not because they have actually seen no evidence. And for the record, I don't have an issue with that. It is your prerogative. Yet for you or any atheist to say "I have not seen any evidence for the existence of God, so therefore I am an atheist" and yet purport it is because you have actually done your homework is well self deception. I personally would wish that atheist's just admit that they make a choice because it helps them to fit in with their peers, or because they don't like the idea of a nasty monster god, or that they think it is part of the human travel to rid themselves of superstition. Looking at the evidence people which theists rely upon does not mean accepting it as true. But to not look at it is reckless and silly, not to say, intellectually dishonest.
Atheist often say they prefer the truth to hope on a lie. Yet, I find atheists often deluded by their own intellectual dishonesty. Denying that atheists have a worldview is one of the most delightful delusions.
"the idea of no god is not related to origin of humanity. I think that has to be a nonsense."You have failed to demonstrate this, rather instead baselessly asserting it to be nonsense.
Failing to prove it to you - does not mean I have failed. It only means that you do not understand logic and reasoning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Stephen. You have not proved your case.
And simply getting all flustered about it and swearing does not mean you have proved it.
You have NOT demonstrated that the kings of Israel were any more the sons of god generally as anyone else in Israel. And demonstrating that piece of information means absolutely diddly squat. You have demonstrated with a couple of verses that David and Solomon were called sons - perhaps of God. And this of course was specific to them particularly for valid reasons. You have not demonstrated that it was because they were kings. Not from the bible. And again, when I asked - you simply refuse to provide the answer - were there any other king of Israel who called son of god. A simple yes or no will suffice. Or will you just do your normal sidestepping whenever the questions get to difficult for you?
Your contention is that Jesus was called son of God because all kings of Israel were known as sons of David. I have contradicted that statement. And currently given your lack of evidence - to the contrary - you are floundering. All you need to do is say "I don't know" and move on. You don't have the biblical knowledge you think you do. You really don't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
ok. If you say so. Thanks for your assistance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
.TRADESECRET, a Bible 2nd class woman, the Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO, Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity he/she follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding Noah's ark, the pseudo-christian that says kids that curse their parents should be killed, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19 and 2 Timothy 4:3, an admitted sexual deviant, and had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery,YOUR RUNAWAY QUOTE #302929438583 FROM HARD FACTS: "If you recall, which I have no doubt you do, that I said my profile was as accurate as yours and ought to be considered as such."Obviously you didn't understand my previous fact that you as a mere pseudo-christian woman now, whereas you were a superior man before, can't accept the presence of a TRUE Christian like myself, whereas I follow ALL of the Bible, and not RUNAWAY from it as you Satanically do ad infinitum, understood? Therefore, you have to come up with yet another lame "girly" excuse like you did in your insipid quote above to blatantly hide your GENDER REASSIGNMENT SURGERY AND OUTCOME OF SAME!With me alone in easily raking you through the fire in showing you not to be anywhere close to being a Christian, and now showing the membership that you had a gender sex change, put the last candle upon the proverbial cake. Jesus wanted you to be a male at the onset of your birth, and whereas you slapped Him in the face AGAIN by turning yourself into a 2nd class woman that will NOT be going to heaven!I will continue to bring your gender change to the forefront, therefore, you might as well address it sooner than later because my posts will once again show you to be one of the most Bible ignorant pseudo-christians upon this prestigious forum, get it? Yeah, you do.IS THERE A PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN THAT IS NOT A RUNAWAY LIKE TRADESECRET?
Oh Hello again Brother - thanks again for your delightful reply. Did I misunderstand? Sorry. I thought you were asking me how I came across as a male before - when I was unaware I had described myself that way - and in fact had not put anything into my profile and now after I put my profile up I identify as a female? Is that not what you asked me?
In any event - I refer to my previous post. Where I said that my profile is as accurate as yours. Thanks Brother. Hope that answers your question.
Created: